argument76 快考了，没感觉啊！！！求助

ahqing008UID: 181498

【题目】The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.
"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

The argument above is well-developed, but not well-reasoned sufficiently. The conclusion that the Luxess is effective in improving the condition of facial skin is groundless because of lacking strong support. The generalizibility of the study is open to doubt, the time lasted of study is questionable, and the result of the study is infirm since overlooking alternative explanations. I will discuss each as below.

To begin with, the conditions of the volunteers is not clear enough to justify that the study is representative. How many person participate in the study, are the number big enough to represent the whole population? How about their health condition?  What about the age-bracket of the volunteers? Since common sense tell me that the young or healthy person often enjoys better facial skin than aged and less healthy counterpart. Without presenting all of information, the result of the study is unconvinced.

Furthermore, whether "one month" is long enough to test the effect of the cream is open to question. As we know, as a kind of chemical product especially cosmetic, its safety is of first importance. And only one month seems too short to identify its effects on person. Perhaps it will improve the facial skin in a short time but will not last more than two month. Or may be it will improve the facial skin fast but may undermine the whole condition of the body in a long period. Absent such evidence, the author’s advice seems too dangerous.

Also, the wording of the argument is too vague to justify the effect of the cream. Firstly, what is the “most” represent the number of person in the group? May be only half of the group, without ruling out accurate number of the group. Secondly, to what extent dose “marked improvement” mean? May be the volunteer evaluate the effect ambiguous, or may be the volunteers who report “marked improvement” are the ones without better facial skin conditions at first, thus slight improvement means “marked” for them, but may not so “marked” for others! Therefore the author’s recommendation is undermined without accurate wording.

Finally, even though the study is representative and the cream is safe enough to use, the conclusion still cannot convince me, because the author fails to provide other explanations lead to the "marked improvement". Since the volunteers washed their faces with mild soap first, the author provide no evidence to identify that the soap is of no relation to the facial skin improvement. May be the soap is the key factor lead to the improvement. Moreover, the author provides no detailed information about whether these volunteers use some other cosmetics? Do they eat some medicine that may affect the skin in the month? What about their living habits? Do they do some special skin care within the month? Without such evidence, the author cannot conclude that it is Luxess that results in the better facial skin.

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To bolster it the author needs to provide more evidence about the study: the number of participants, their detailed information that may affect the result of the study, together with their activities in the month, the evidence that the soap is of no relation to the skin improvement. To better assess the argument, the author had better provide more precise wording to describe the result of the study, the specification of the cream, and whether there are some side-effects for a long period.

echostateUID: 194935

The argument above is well-developed, but not well-reasoned sufficiently. The conclusion that the Luxess is effective in improving the condition of facial skin is groundless because of lacking strong support. The generalizibility of the study is open to doubt, the time lasted of study is questionable, and the result of the study is infirm since overlooking alternative explanations. I will discuss each as below.

To begin with, the conditions of the volunteers is [are，并且前边condition建议换个词，和skin condition的condition取得不是一个意思，容易让人糊涂] not clear enough to justify that the study is representative. How many person participate in the study, are the number big enough to represent the whole population? How about their health condition?  What about the age-bracket of the volunteers? Since common sense tell me that the young or healthy person often enjoys better facial skin than aged and less healthy counterpart [这句话最好再深入一下——攻击意图不是特别明显——是说应该覆盖所有年龄段，但是如果没有覆盖就不好，因为各年龄段的需求不同？]. Without presenting all of [these] information, the result of the study is unconvinced.

Furthermore, whether "one month" is long enough to test the effect of the cream is open to question. As we know, as a kind of chemical product especially cosmetic, its [去掉its] safety is of first importance. And only one month seems too short to identify its effects on person [on person，别扭ing……]. Perhaps it will improve the facial skin in a short time but will not last more than two month. Or may be it will improve the facial skin fast but may undermine the whole condition of the body in a long period. Absent such evidence [不知道absent能不能这么用], the author’s advice seems too dangerous.

Also, the wording of the argument is too vague to justify the effect of the cream. Firstly, what is the “most” represent the number of person in the group [到represent就可以停，后面的几个词不要为好吧？] May be only half of the group, without ruling out accurate number of the group [rule out the accurate number？再次别扭ing……]. Secondly, to what extent dose “marked improvement” mean? May be the volunteer evaluate the effect ambiguous, or may be the volunteers who report “marked improvement” are the ones without better facial skin conditions at first, thus slight improvement means “marked” for them, but may not so “marked” for others! Therefore the author’s recommendation is undermined without accurate wording [undermined by inaccurate wording].

Finally, even though the study [the sample of study] is representative and the cream is safe enough to use, the conclusion still cannot convince me, because the author fails to provide [是rule out，不是provide] other explanations lead to the "marked improvement". Since the volunteers washed their faces with mild soap first, the author provide no evidence to identify that the soap is of no relation to the facial skin improvement. May be the soap is the key factor lead to the improvement. Moreover, the author provides no detailed information about whether these volunteers use some other cosmetics? [句号！] Do they eat some medicine that may affect the skin in the month? What about their living habits? Do they do some special skin care within the month? Without such evidence, the author cannot conclude that it is Luxess that results in the better facial skin.

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To bolster it the author needs to provide more evidence about the study: the number of participants, their detailed information that may affect the result of the study, together with their activities in the month, the evidence that the soap is of no relation to the skin improvement. To better assess the argument, the author had better provide more precise wording to describe the result of the study, the specification of the cream, and whether there are some side-effects for a long period.


[如果是限时的，就很不错。至少在这么短的时间内打了这么多字，基本上把错误找全了。不过，每段最好能再多展开一点。但是如果那样的话，考虑时间，可能需要砍掉一些内容。]
[我也不知道是写3段，展开的充分一点好，还是写4段以上，把问题找全好。]

echostateUID: 194935

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... hlight=%2Bechostate
我这次写的很差。一限时，写的很少。

如果对你实在没价值就看篇issue吧，自己选：）
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... hlight=%2Bechostate

beckhangongUID: 2104229

【题目】The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.
"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

The argument above is well-developed, but not well-reasoned sufficiently.[well 和 sufficient 是不是有点意思重复呢] The conclusion that the Luxess is effective in improving the condition of facial skin is groundless because of lacking strong support. The generalizibility of the study is open to doubt, the time lasted of study is questionable, and the result of the study is infirm since overlooking alternative explanations. I will discuss each as below.
[开头说的挺清楚的]

To begin with, the conditions of the volunteers is not clear enough to justify that the study is representative. How many person [persons?]participate in the study, are the number big enough to represent the whole population? How about their health condition?  What about the age-bracket of the volunteers? Since common sense tell me that the young or healthy person often enjoys better facial skin than aged and less healthy counterpart. Without presenting all of information, the result of the study is unconvinced.[一只觉得这种提问的方式挺好，我也打算要用用，学习]

Furthermore, whether "one month" is long enough to test the effect of the cream is open to question. As we know, as a kind of chemical product especially cosmetic, its safety is of first importance. And only one month seems too short to identify its effects on person. Perhaps it will improve the facial skin in a short time but will not last more than two month. Or may be it will improve the facial skin fast but may undermine the whole condition of the body in a long period. Absent such evidence, the author’s advice seems too dangerous.
[说了安全的重要性，但是我认为逻辑应该是这样的，首先一个月的时间对于检验来看是不是够用，能不能真正看到效果和改善，然后说就算看到了，能不能长久，在之后，就算长久了，会不会对身体的其他方面产生不利的影响。]

Also, the wording of the argument is too vague to justify the effect of the cream. Firstly, what is the “most” represent the number of person in the group? May be only half of the group, without ruling out accurate number of the group. Secondly, to what extent dose “marked improvement” mean? May be the volunteer evaluate the effect ambiguous, or may be the volunteers who report “marked improvement” are the ones without better facial skin conditions at first, thus slight improvement means “marked” for them, but may not so “marked” for others! Therefore the author’s recommendation is undermined without accurate wording. [再一次受到了教育，引用原文中的单词也不失为一个开展思路的好方法，再学习]

Finally, even though the study is representative and the cream is safe enough to use, the conclusion still cannot convince me, because the author fails to provide other explanations lead to the "marked improvement". Since the volunteers washed their faces with mild soap first, the author provide no evidence to identify that the soap is of no relation to the facial skin improvement. May be the soap is the key factor lead to the improvement. Moreover, the author provides no detailed information about whether these volunteers use some other cosmetics? Do they eat some medicine that may affect the skin in the month? What about their living habits? Do they do some special skin care within the month? Without such evidence, the author cannot conclude that it is Luxess that results in the better facial skin.
[这段很精彩，说出了所有我想说的话，呵呵]

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To bolster it the author needs to provide more evidence about the study: the number of participants, their detailed information that may affect the result of the study, together with their activities in the month, the evidence that the soap is of no relation to the skin improvement. To better assess the argument, the author had better provide more precise wording to describe the result of the study, the specification of the cream, and whether there are some side-effects for a long period.
[结尾也不错，但是有一点长了，点睛之笔就ok]

[BTW, 算没算时间，如果在规定时间写完，我觉得相当不错了，基本无敌，这不是刻意吹捧我的战友哈]